Expert Report: US Strikes on Iran Would Risk Major War

Expert Report: US Strikes on Iran Would Risk Major War


by Robert Burns
From Associated Press

Yahoo! News

September 12, 2012

http://news.yahoo.com/report-us-strikes-iran-risk-major-war-023148627.html

U.S. military strikes on Iran would shake the regime's
political control and damage its ability to launch
counterstrikes, but the Iranians probably would manage to
retaliate, directly and through surrogates, in ways that
risked igniting all-out war in the Middle East, according to
an assessment of an attack's costs and benefits.

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy



Iran's most important nuclear facilities and damage its



military forces but would only delay - not stop - the



Islamic republic's pursuit of a nuclear bomb.







"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lt.



Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former



deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and



former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.







The report compiled by former government officials, national



security experts and retired military officers is to be



publicly released Thursday. It says achieving more than a



temporary setback in Iran's nuclear program would require a



military operation - including a land occupation - more



taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.







An advance copy of the report was provided to The Associated Press.







The assessment emerges against the backdrop of escalating



tensions between Israel and the U.S. over when a military



strike on Iran might be required. The Israelis worry that



Iran is moving more quickly toward a nuclear capability than



the United States believes. The U.S. has not ruled out



attacking but has sought to persuade Israel to give



diplomacy more time.







Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a mortal threat, citing



Iran's persistent calls for the destruction of the Jewish



state, its development of missiles capable of striking



Israel and Iranian support for Arab militant groups.







Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.







An oft-stated argument against striking Iran is that it



would add to a perception of the U.S. as anti-Muslim - a



perception linked to the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and



Afghanistan and hardened by Internet-based video excerpts of



an anti-Muslim film that may have fueled Tuesday's deadly



attack on a U.S. diplomatic office in Libya.







"Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and



unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are



probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike



- by the Israelis or U.S. - on Iran," retired Lt. Gen.



Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former



operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.







The report was compiled and endorsed by more than 30 former



diplomats, retired admirals and generals and others who said



their main purpose was to provide clarity about the



potential use of military force against Iran. They reached



no overall conclusion and offered no recommendations.







"The report is intended to have what we call an informing



influence and hopefully something of a calming influence,



but that's something readers will have to answer for



themselves," said Thomas Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador



to the United Nations who has held informal contacts with



Iranian officials as recently as the past few months.







Kearney said the assessment was meant to stimulate thinking



in the U.S. about the objectives of a military attack on



Iran beyond the obvious goal of hitting key components of



Iran's nuclear program. "Clearly there is some (U.S.)



ability to do destruction, which will cause some delay, but



what occurs after that?" he said in an interview.







Other endorsers of the report include Brent Scowcroft, who



was President George H.W. Bush's national security adviser;



former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, former



Sens. Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel and two retired chiefs of



U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and navy



Adm. William J. Fallon.







The analysis includes stark assertions about one of the most



volatile and complex issues facing the U.S. in a



presidential election year. President Barack Obama's failure



to get Iran to negotiate acceptable limits on its nuclear



program is cited by his opponents as emblematic of a



misguided and weak foreign policy.







The report said the Obama administration's stated objective



- shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney - of



preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to



be achieved through military force if action is limited to a



combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations



and special operations strikes.







It says an extensive U.S. military assault could delay for



up to four years Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon.



It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete



its treasury and raise internal tensions.







"We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime



collapse or capitulation," it said, adding that such an



attack would increase Iran's motivation to build a bomb, in



part because the Iranian leadership would see building a



bomb as a way to inhibit future U.S. attacks "and redress



the humiliation of being attacked."







A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the



Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining



of Iran's influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to



occupy part or all of the country, the report said.







"Given Iran's large size and population, and the strength of



Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran



would require a commitment of resources and personnel



greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10



years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined," the report said.







The U.S. had as many as 170,000 troops in Iraq at the height
of the 2003-10 war, and U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan
peaked last year at 100,000. Eleven years into the Afghan
war the U.S. still has about 74,000 troops there.

Early drafts of the report were coordinated by the
nonpartisan Iran Project, a private group funded in part by
the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropy that promotes
peace and democracy. The final version includes
contributions from others with national security expertise.
It is based on publicly available documents, including
classified intelligence reports.